Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strongest football nations by Elo Ratings

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments that the article represents original research were not adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest football nations by Elo Ratings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relevant content should be in World Football Elo Ratings only. Article has no secondary sources and strongest teams per decade is irrelevant as the ranking only was introduced in 1970. Koppapa (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question – Are you requesting a merge? The World Football Elo Ratings page is too large as it is, and has several spinoffs for that reason.

Comment – The ranking was not introduced in 1970, but has been calculated retroactively since the first international match in 1880 or so. Afasmit (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Without prejudice. Nominator is absolutely correct. The information in Strongest football nations by Elo Ratings is a duplication of the information in World Football Elo Ratings. However, I could see separate articles or an additional article that lists the teams by individual year. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – For page size reasons only the "top 10 since 1970" are listed on the main article's page and the "strongest teams per decade" are not there at all. Not sure what you mean with an "additional article that lists the teams by individual year"; you mean to have a separate list for all 130+ years? Afasmit (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Why not? Personally I believe it would be encyclopedic worthy. Let’s look at any other reference source with regards to Professional or highly ranked Amateur competition, be it individual or team, and they list the rankings by year. Isn’t Wikipedia trying to be “the end all and be all” of reference sources? You could have one article that contains the individual year information for all years and then just have redirects to the article by year. A lot of work, but then again, I believe it would deserve a place here on Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you do not dispute the relevance of the lists then, nor that there could be separate pages with them. Why do you say "Delete ... nominator is absolutely correct.", if she proposes that all relevant information should be in the main page and that the lists per decade are irrelevant? Afasmit (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, also looks to be WP:OR to me. Giant Snowman 15:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:OR is not part of the nominator's rational, but check the talk page for an old discussion on that. Afasmit (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the nominator is requesting a merge for the first section with the main paper. In principle I have no problem with that (others may), though for such request there are less disruptive methods. The second bit, about strongest teams per decade being irrelevant must stem from a misunderstanding of the subject. The football Elo ratings may have been first published in 1997, but have been calculated starting from the very first match played. Elo scores do not create "a list of what would have been", as someone mislabeled the prematurely deleted list of Elo ranking leaders, but show in a widely acknowledged objective way what the relative strengths of the competitors (in this case national football teams) were during a period. Afasmit (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of potential interest to the world's billion-plus soccer fans, and the original article is rather long, so merging isn't a good idea. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is completely WP:OR. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original research. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The OR concern (again, not part of the nominator's rational) was discussed on the article's talk page in 2007. The "analysis or synthesis" here constitutes calculating an average, which is a standard and referenced practice with Elo scores and could be considered a Routine calculation. Afasmit (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.